sustainability integration into building projects: malaysian

Nor Kalsum Mohd Isaa, Anuar Aliasb and Zulkiflee Abdul Samadb, The Macrotheme Review 3(3) Spring 2014

14

The Macrotheme Review A multidisciplinary journal of global macro trends

SUSTAINABILITY INTEGRATION INTO BUILDING PROJECTS:

MALAYSIAN CONSTRUCTION STAKEHOLDERS’

PERSPECTIVES

Nor Kalsum Mohd Isaa*, Anuar Aliasb** and Zulkiflee Abdul Samadb** Faculty of Human Science, Sultan Idris Education University, Perak, Malaysia*

Faculty of the Built Environment, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia**

Abstract

Planning process is the most crucial stage for sustainability integration in building

construction projects. This paper aims at proposing a framework to integrate

sustainability through planning process of building projects in Malaysia. The proposed

framework consists of the strategies that should be implemented during the project

planning process. Based on the available literature, twenty-one strategies were found to

be significantly related to the proposed framework. A total of 357 Malaysian building

project stakeholders were selected to be contributed for questionnaire survey to identify

locally relevant and priorities of the strategies. The respondents were chosen from the

stakeholders who are directly involved in sustainable building project and/or the

stakeholders who were judged as knowledgeable on the project. A framework was then

developed using the identified strategies. The findings are useful for future researchers

and practitioners to find solution for encouraging and improving sustainable building

project implementation in Malaysia.

Keywords: Project Planning Process; Sustainable Building; Cronbach’s Alpha; Factor Analysis

1. Introduction

The growth of urbanization has been increasingly in Malaysia which led to greater economic

growth in construction industry. In 2009, Malaysia’s total population was estimated to be about

28.3 million, which over 70% was living in urban areas (Department of Statistics Malaysia,

2011). Building construction is considered to be the highest demand of construction projects in

Malaysia as it forms about 67.6% of the overall construction work (CIDB, 2008). The fast growth

of building construction project however has created pressure on sustainability issues especially

in urban area of the country. Malaysia’s buildings were reported to consume about 12.85% of the

total energy consumption and 47.5% of the country’s electricity consumption, which most of the

energy is used for lighting and air-conditioning (Department of Electricity and Gas Supply

Malaysia, 2001). Wu and Low (2010) claimed that building sector is the largest sources of global

greenhouse gas emission and it consumes about one-third of the world’s energy.


15

Malaysia is looking at making their buildings more energy efficient and sustainable. The

government of Malaysia has realized the important of saving the environment through sustainable

building development especially toward reducing carbon emission and resources use (Md Darus

et al, 2009; Zainul Abidin, 2009). The government of Malaysia has introduced the

implementation of photovoltaic systems in buildings through the ‘Malaysia Building Integrated

Photovoltaic Program’ (MBIPV). They have also launched renewable energy programme called

‘SURIA 1000 for developers’ to encourage the Malaysian property developers to be involved in

renewable energy efforts (Zainul Abidin, 2010). Sustainable building and energy efficient designs

have also been ventured. The LEO (Low Energy Office) and GEO (Green Energy Office)

buildings are the pilot projects that provide a platform for proof of the concept in driving forward

the sustainability goals of the Malaysian building industry. Green Building Index (GBI Malaysia)

has been developed in 2009 for the reason of evaluating the environmental design and

performance of Malaysian buildings (GSB, 2012).

Sustainability in Malaysian building project is also supported by the numerous current spatial

planning of the country such as Malaysian National Physical Planning, National Urbanisation

Policy, Development Plans and the development control activities (GSB, 2012). A special

attention is also given in the Tenth Malaysia Plan (2011-2015) towards improving sustainability

in the building sector of the country including to the economy plan to harness its energy savings

potential and to reduce carbon emissions and dependence on fossil fuel. Revision of the UBBL

(Uniform Building Bylaws) to incorporate MS1525 Code of Practice is highlighted in the plan for

the integration of renewable energy and energy efficient systems in buildings. Wider adoption of

GBI to benchmark energy consumption in the new and existing buildings is also emphasized

(APEC, 2012). It can be considered that many efforts relating to sustainability in building project

have been implementing in the country but the question remain is ‘why the unsustainable issues

in this industry are still continuously happening? This denotes that there is a gap between the

field of sustainability and their integration strategies within Malaysian building projects.

Building sustainably is fundamentally a process of best practices that leads to sustainable

outcomes (Muldavin, 2010). Hence, it is critically important to get these processes right in order

to deliver a successful sustainable building. Planning process at the early project stage is the most

important process conducted in managing the whole life of projects (Zwikael et al., 2009). The

process holds the strategic position to integrate sustainability considerations to have the most

sustainable effect on the overall project (Reyes et al, 2014; Wu and Low, 2010; Hayles, 2004).

For the reason of sustainability integration, buildings are planned and designed in parallel rather

than series so that the cumulative effect of planning and design decision concerning one system

can be evaluated on other systems. Thus, an integrated and determined planning process is

needed to integrate the sustainability attributes into the project’s whole life and this required a

great demand on an efficient method of integration. The idea has been accepting since long time

ago, (Muldavin, 2010). However, till now the sustainability integration in Malaysian buildings

are still remain without proven. There is also no a clear framework on the strategies to integrate

sustainability during project planning process was innovated in the current Malaysian building

industry. The GBI Malaysia rating system is obviously to focus more on environmental aspect of

sustainability, while planning process matters are not often considered. The project management

process is highlighted in the LEED and Green Mark however, most of the points are allocated to

commissioning and certification activities and no points are allocated to planning (Wu and Low,

2010). The planning process that does not encourage sustainability matter clearly and limited


16

interaction between various diciplines have hindered sustainable building projects from reaching

the expected achievement.

In conventional Malaysian building projects, planning process is typically not conducted very

well due to its complexity and extra costs that almost always associate with it (Mansur et al,

2003). The lack of training, education and exposure towards sustainability principles and the

integration strategies has resulted of the lack of professional capabilities to consult on

sustainability (Zainul Abidin, 2009). Construction Industry Master Plan Malaysia (2006-2015)

has reported that 50% of the failure in Malaysian construction industry can be attributed to design

faults, while 40% are due to construction faults and only 10% are because of material faults

(CIDB, 2007). It shows that responsibility on the performance of sustainable building project

specifically will have to be focus towards the pre-construction stage of the project especially

during the planning process. Malaysian project stakeholders always offered a range of different

thoughts that point to misconceptions and uncertainty about sustainable development (Zainul

Abidin, 2009). The traditional linear project planning process and minimal input from the

operation and maintenance groups, construction manager and trade contractor or outside

stakeholders during the design stage and planning process of building project made the

sustainability principles are hard to be incorporated in the project, for instances the use of

Industrialized Building Systems (IBS), one of the sustainable construction methods, is still not

widespread in this country due the reasons of poor knowledge and lack of integration at the

design stage, which IBS component manufacturers are currently involved only after the design

stage (CIDB, 2003). The lack of integration among relevant players in the planning process of the

design stage has resulted in the need for plan redesign and additional cost to be incurred if the

method is adopted. Besides, many of the country’s public sectors approvals and permitting

processes are not equipped to handle sustainable project. Building codes that are written for

conventional developments often do not allow sustainability system. Lack of collaboration

among Malaysian construction players such as pointing fingers culture and the weakness of

government involvement especially in term of enforcement matter (Shafii et al, 2006) and

devising new policy (Zainul Abidin, 2009) also have delayed the accelerating of sustainable

building projects implementation in the country.

For that reason, this study attempt to response to these issues by proposing a framework for

integrating sustainability into building projects through planning process relevant to the

Malaysian context. This has entailed the need to answer a major question: How sustainability

principles should be integrated during the planning process of Malaysian building project?

A literature review was used to develop the preliminary set of the strategies to integrate

sustainability during project planning process to be included in the framework. The strategies

however required of inputs and refining processes which involve Malaysian building project

stakeholders to consider the local context of where the framework is applied. Thus, quantitative

technique of research by using questionnaire survey was considered to ensure views from the

project stakeholders are considered throughout the framework development process. A statistical

analysis of the survey responses has provided information for the identification of the most

relevant strategies to be addressed in the proposed framework and assigning their appropriate

weighting level. The findings can help the project stakeholders to be clear on how sustainability

principles should be integrated into building projects during the planning process and ultimately

encourage them to acquire and to get involved in the project.


17

2. Review of the strategies to integrate sustainability during project planning process

Planning process has a significant impact on the ability of a construction project to success

(Hamilton et al, 1996; Syal et al, 1992). Success during the detailed design, construction and the

rest phase of the project depends highly on the level of effort during this stage (Gibson and

Gebken, 2003; Dumon et al, 1992). Planning process for a sustainable building project is

different from the traditional planning process due to its complexity and holistic approach. The

process held responsibility to deliver sustainable development goals throughout the project

(Yudelson, 2009). During this process, decisions are made to achieve sustainability standards so

that maximum capital and whole life costs can be achieved (CIOB, 2010).

Robichaud and Anantatmula, (2011); CIOB, (2010) and Yudelson, (2009) suggested that

sustainability goals and project priorities must be considered seriously in the planning process of

the early stage of project development. At this stage, the level of understanding and commitment

to sustainability may vary among different parties (Halliday, 2008). Thus, how the stakeholders

are communicating and how the sustainability inputs are given to the stakeholders ensures this

responsibility (Wu and Low, 2010; CIOB, 2010). Problems exist when the project team transfers

the sustainability goals into the following period throughout the life cycle of project, where there

is a high risk of the sustainability baton being dropped throughout the process. Thus, it is crucial

to ensure all relevant stakeholders are participated during the project planning process. They are

expecting to understand the sustainability goals and directions of the project so that the project

plan that is delivered is able to be a sustainability guide to the projects whole life and the rest of

the project management process (CIOB, 2010).

Robichaud and Anantatmula, (2011) highlighted that sustainable concerns should be included

during the establishment of project scope, project charter, drawing, contract and detailed project

plan and the rest of project documents. The sustainability requirements should be mentioned

clearly in the project documents (CIOB, 2010; Yudelson, 2009). The optimal sustainability

performance will then evolve from project decisions made to meet the performance target

(Muldavin, 2010).

To plan for a successful sustainable building project, the project stakeholders should interact

closely throughout the planning processes of the project. Each project shall have a core integrated

project team that shall be cross-functional to accomplish the various tasks of the project.

According to Yudelson (2009), an integrated project team should consists of a wide range of

specialist and functions including architect, general contractor, stakeholders from the owner’s

side including project manager, structural engineer, mechanical engineer, civil engineer,

electrical engineer/technology consultant, landscape architect, interior designer, lighting

designer/consultant, energy expert, cost management consultant, specialized design consultant,

mechanical contractor, commissioning authority/agent (especially at the design development

phase) and others depending on the nature and complexity of the project, the specific

sustainability goals sought and local site and community conditions. The project team has to be

initiated and maintained throughout the project planning process. They should commits to follow

through all the way to the end of construction phase (Yudelson, 2009). Local community

representatives, including a local government planner should be involved in the planning process

to support the project (Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011). Locally driven coalitions are viable


18

means of improving the status and future well being of communities in which they live. Perkins

et al. (2011) believed that an absence or low level of local engagement on the part of team

members inhibits planning across community sectors. For instances, with local government

stakeholders involved in the process, the project’s initial design is more likely to comply with

local, state and federal development needs and regulations. Their involvement provides

opportunity to represent the local community voices for the matters such as amenities, public

transport and many more (Sayce et al, 2004). Local government stakeholders are the party who

may financially support or approve the project during the planning stage so that the approval

process can go smoothly, or offer perks and incentives that are exclusive to the projects

(Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011; Choi, 2009).

An integrated design or a sustainability coordinator, who is a sustainable building specialist,

should be assigned for the project. This person should involve in the planning process from the

earliest stage of development and must have experience of delivering certified sustainable

building project through integrated design process. He/she also should be a person who is an

effective communicator and a good negotiator, given the highly collaborative nature of this

position (Muldavin, 2010).

Robichaud and Anantatmula (2011) highlighted that sustainable development knowledge and

education needs to reach beyond designers and architects for the acceptance of the sustainable

building project. Without a sustainability project knowledge base, they will not be able to

evaluate and deliver such projects accurately and effectively. Choi (2009) suggested that one of

the factors that should be considered when evaluating project proposals is experience of design

team on sustainable buildings and their ability to deliver products with fewer cost overruns and

change orders. It would be very difficult for a design team without experience and knowledge of

sustainable building project to build a structure that capitalized on all the social, economic and

environmental benefits.

Continual communications and training for all project personnel are essential during the planning

process to ensure the accomplishment of sustainable project goals in a cost effective manner.

There is a need to educate team members and market representatives on sustainable development

issues throughout this process as they determine property value and viability (Choi, 2009;

Glavinich, 2008). The project personnel, including vendors, should be educated to ensure they

follow the company’s sustainable development methodology and focus on sustainability in their

work for the projects (Halliday, 2008). Besides, to support the sustainable building project, all

professionals, project managers, customers and other stakeholders, will need to be educated on

sustainable buildings including on expected performance of sustainable building features

(Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011; Choi, 2009) so that they can better gauge the value of their

investment and purchases. For a project manager, Hwang and Ng (2013) revealed that the top

three knowledge areas critical to sustainable project planning in order to effectively deal with

sustainable projects are schedule management and planning, communication management and

risk management.

Doyle et al. (2009) and Bogenstätter (2000) claimed that sustainability quality and capability

should be considered during the selection of a project manager, consultants, designers,

contractors and the team members of a sustainable building project. They are selected based on

their right attitude, one of being willing to learn and to participate in the new things and process


19

(Yudelson, 2009). The priority is also given to those who are familiar with the product type and

market, and having exposure to the project (Bogenstätter, 2000). Difficult situations can often

occur on projects where the client has hired the team members who will not commit to participate

in a team process or even to attend all the key project meetings. Thus, choosing a team with a

portfolio of successful sustainable building projects is also beneficial to ensure the successful of

the project (Choi, 2009).

Hwang and Ng (2013) revealed that it is crucial to inform sustainability goals and project

priorities to the team members at the initial discussion of a new project. The early planning

process of the project generally includes a group discussion about the needs and requirements for

the project. Potential bidders should be given an opportunity to understand the vision of the

project team and the importance of the sustainability aspect of the project in a pre-bid meeting

(Doyle et al., 2009).

The traditional project management process runs linearly and usually has minimal input from

engineering disciplines, operation and maintenance groups or the outsider during the planning

process (Doyle et al., 2009; Choi, 2009). Unlike a conventional project, a sustainable building

project works best when the expanded group of stakeholders work together to concentrate the

majority of their creative efforts very early in the planning process (Choi, 2009; Doyle et al.,

2009; Riley et al., 2004).

An integrated design approach is very crucial to be practiced for the reason of integrating

sustainability into building projects. This approach requires all stakeholders who would usually

be involved and influenced at every cycle of the building’s whole life, based on the suitability of

the project, to commit and collaborate throughout the project planning process since the

conceptual and development stages to address project goals, needs and potential barriers in order

to optimize the whole construction project (Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011; Choi, 2009).

There is the need to adopt strategies that facilitate collaborative working among project teams, as

a prerequisite to achieving sustainability objectives (Ugwu and Chaupt, 2006). Every stakeholder

has to participate during planning process and no one allowed considering just their own special

interest (Yudelson, 2009). Active design professionals’ involvement in planning was repeatedly

claimed as the key to increase project success (Gibson and Gebken, 2003). Depending on the

developer’s goals and the type of project, an integrated design team will include different

combinations of professionals to accommodate the project’s specific skills and service needs.

This multidisciplinary integrated design approach can be a very effective tool to understand the

clients’ needs and requirements, evaluate and correct design flaws, determine proper sustainable

material usage and installation, and foster communication among all of the stakeholders.

Choi (2009) and Yudelson (2009) suggested that, it is crucial for all members of the integrated

design team to share their knowledge and work together through the planning process to ensure

that the systems they put in place are complementary. They should be committed to the integrated

design process in order to ensure that the project attains its desired goals. Bringing all of the

project stakeholders together as early as possible during the planning process of early conceptual

and design stage allows the project team to take a whole building approach towards achievement

of a sustainable building at lower costs (Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011; Yudelson, 2009;

Lapinski et al., 2006; Beheiry et al., 2006). The team will have more influence on some of the

most important project decisions, such as site selection, strategic planning, and the preliminary


20

design concepts. Early involvement also allows the project team to create a highly effective

analysis of the project and to leverage synergies between various building functions and site

characteristics (Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011; Choi, 2009; Bogenstätter, 2000). Perkins et

al. (2011) highlighted that how well teams functioned in the early stages is strongly related to the

quality of their later preparations for sustainability. Inputs from their collaboration are able to

minimize sustainable building costs throughout all phases of a building’s lifecycle. This approach

can organize priorities to align with a project’s budget, avoiding cost overruns, minimize delays,

and decrease the change orders during construction. It is also can streamline operations and the

maintenance of the building in the post-occupancy phase, as well as provide lower utility and

maintenance costs because of its superior planning and design from the onset (Muldavin, 2010).

Muldavin (2010) and Choi (2009) stated that it is important to incorporate the requirements for

integrated design and the process also the sustainability aspects into the project documents

including the strategic and comprehensive plan. The cost, benefits and the performance target of

a sustainable building and sustainability issues must be documented and communicated to expand

the market for a sustainable development. The integrated design process could be even more

important than the design of the building for delivering a successful sustainable building

(Muldavin, 2010). Recent research shows that whole building designs or the holistic approach is

very important towards delivering a sustainable building project (Hwang and Ng, 2013;

Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011). It requires an integrated design team and all affected

stakeholders work together to evaluate the design for the life cycle cost analysis, quality of life,

future flexibility, efficiency, overall impact, productivity, post-occupancy evaluation and how the

occupants will be enlivened (Doyle et al., 2009). It draws from the knowledge pool of the

stakeholders across the life cycle of the project. A whole-systems analysis that treats the building

as a system and takes into account the interactions and synergies between the different

components should be done when possible (Muldavin, 2010; Glavinich, 2008). Although the

analysis generally requires more time upfront than standard design process, but it can maximize

potential of sustainable benefits (Hwang and Ng, 2013).

Muldavin, (2010), Halliday, (2008) and Glavinich (2008) recommended that a commissioning

process should be added during the planning process and described in a specific commissioning

section. It is very important to make sure that all the systems perform as designed. The

availability of competent commissioning agent is a key risk factor influencing cost and quality of

the project (Yudelson, 2009). The best commissioning can properly diagnose complicated

problem, while less experienced commissioning agents may spend more money and not really

solve the problem. The commissioning agent should be able to coordinate and collaborate with

the architects, engineers and contractors in order to complete commissioning. Since the

commissioning agent serves as check on the work of others to ensure the project meets the design

intent and perform up to expectations, bringing commissioning agent on in planning process at

pre design phase will ensure that any problems that arise can be fixed during the design stage at

minimal cost to the owner (Muldavin, 2010).

Sayce et al, (2004) suggested that decision making in project planning process which involved in

determining the future life of a building should take into account the needs of both internal and

external stakeholders. Internal stakeholder is the group that have a direct legal or financial

interest in the building such as owners, occupiers and consultants. The external stakeholder group

includes all those with no legal, equitable or no financial interest in the building but who are


21

affected by decisions about it such as shoppers, visitors, local authorities and others public

bodies. A truly sustainable development should recognise all the stakeholders in decision making

as they have rights, whether or not they are enshrined in legislation.

Sayce et al. (2004) argued that planning for building design should consider the user’s

community needs and fit for purpose. Buildings that are loved are more likely to be maintained

and to be sustainable. The team should works with prospective occupants or end user to establish

their requirements and interiors spaces, adjacencies and other programming requirements

(Yudelson, 2009). This can be achieved by involving at least a representative of the end user

during the project planning process. It is vital to ensure that the project is built with high level of

user involvement in the planning process of conceptual and design project phase or the client and

designers cannot be expected to produce distinctive and forward looking sustainable buildings.

A common challenge in conventional construction projects is the lack of effective

communication among various technical experts who tend to use their own tools, protocol, and

industry standards for making decisions and tracking information (Sappe, 2007). This situation

inhibits the project from taking advantage of system optimization, which can save time and

money (Reed and Gordon, 2000). That lack of working together is a typical conventional

construction issue which can cause most sub contractors try to get in and out as soon as possible

(Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2011). Buildings not only affect their immediate users but also

impact a broad range of other people, land use and communities. Therefore, communicating with

the stakeholders efficiently since the planning process of the project assures that key groups

understand and support the project’s sustainable goals (Hwang and Ng, 2013). The most effective

way for effective communication and exchanging ideas among the project stakeholders group is

the incorporation of charrette at the beginning of the project. Charrette is a collaborative planning

process that harnesses the talents and energies of all interested parties to create and support a

buildable smart growth plan (NCI, 2003). This involves regular progress meetings and a multiday

charrette during the planning process. Robichaud and Anantatmula (2011) suggested that

successful charrettes often result in stakeholders feeling included and listened to, even if they do

not agree with every aspect of the end product.

Sustainable project often encounter regulation and code compliance problems in meeting broader

regulations. The problems can occur due to the gap that often exist between the ambition

statements of city leaders or building owners and the realities of day to day implementation of

regulation and code compliance with specific building code and building operational personnel.

Muldavin (2010) and Choi (2009) recommended that it is very important to be fully aware of the

nature of regulation and code compliance problems that can arise and appropriately research and

communicate with local and state officials critical to achieving compliance.

Public and government policies can heavily influence whether the sustainable project get built.

For example policies that educate stakeholders about the benefits and true cost of sustainable

building are key success of the sustainable buildings movement. Choi (2009) recommended that

governments at all levels can show leadership in sustainable development by including

sustainability requirements for all their building projects. By being a supervisor of sustainable

building project, government can use the experience to shape all future land and building

development within their authority to be aligned with their sustainability goals.


22

Regulatory processes and codes that meet the sustainability goals can help to promote sustainable

building project practices. Muldavin (2010) and Choi (2009) suggested that codes and ordinances

can be used as a regulatory tool to encourage sustainable development by setting clear

sustainability criteria that developers need to meet. It is vital to adopt and align the codes to meet

sustainability goals and use the codes, utility fees and process improvements to encourage

sustainable development practices. Codes for sustainability practices should be continually

developed and improved. This will allows more sustainable building plans to be assessed

efficiently and ultimately minimizing developers’ frustration with the regulatory process.

Regulatory guidelines and processes are areas where incentives or allowances can be adjusted to

encourage sustainable practices. Monetary or process-oriented incentives can be offered such as

to ease the initial cost differential or difficulty factor (Choi, 2009).

To sum up, even though, there are many intellectual publications on the subject of sustainable

building, but the ones that relate to planning process and the strategies of sustainability

integration during this process are very few. Several papers were published, which discussed the

importance of planning process towards delivering a sustainable building project successfully.

Those papers however were more theoretical-based than research-based. This paper attempts to

bridge the gap by identifying and proposing a framework to integrate sustainability into building

projects through planning process that is relevant to the Malaysian context.

3. Research Methodology

In order to identify the strategies of sustainability integration through project planning process

from the views of local project stakeholders, a quantitative survey involving 357 Malaysian

building project stakeholders was employed. The quantitative approach by using questionnaire

survey is believed as the best instrument to explore perceptions or opinions of the people on the

issue studied and able to compare the data (Bernard, 2000) towards producing the expected

outcomes needed by this research. Judgment sampling was chosen for this study to obtain desire

information from the project stakeholders who are having the experiences of involving in

sustainable building project and/or knowledgeable on the project. Sekaran and Bougie (2009,

p277) highlighted that ‘judgment sampling involves the choice of subjects who are most

advantageously placed or in the best position to provide the information required’. Sustainable

building project is still infancy in the country and there are still limited stakeholders who are

familiar with the project. Thus, judgment sampling was useful to select the respondents who

reasonably be expected to have expert knowledge by virtue of having gone through the

experiences and processes themselves and might perhaps be able to provide good data and

information to the researcher. Sekaran and Bougie (2009, p277) recommended that ‘judgment

sampling design is used when limited number or category of people have the information that is

sought’. In this case, any type of probability sampling a cross section of entire population is not

useful. The sampling design may limit the generalizability of the findings, however, it is the only

practical sampling method to obtaining the information required from the specific persons that

can give the information required (Sekaran and Bougie, 2009).

In October 2011, there are 4846 Malaysian project stakeholders’ companies were first

approached by electronic mails and telephone calls asking whether they are able to provide a

competent representative to be involved in the questionnaire survey. The stakeholders are

including, 1014 developers that are registered with the Real Estate and Housing Developers’


23

Association of Malaysia (REHDA), 149 engineering firms that are registered with the Malaysian

Institute of Engineers (IEM) and also registered members of consulting firm in the Association of

Consulting Engineers Malaysia (ACEM) - ACEM is one of the bodies who involved in preparing

GBI, Malaysia, 1006 corporate member firms of Malaysian Institute of Architects’ (PAM), 122

planner firms that registered with Malaysian Institute of Planners (MIP), 2181 class A contractors

companies that registered in the Malaysian Contractor Service Center (PKK), Ministry of Works,

20 representatives from Malaysian public local universities and 144 local authorities that are

listed in KPKT (Ministry of Housing and Local Government of Malaysia) website. Telephone

calls were also conducted to the most priorities companies, which are the stakeholders of GBI

Certified building projects (GSB, 2012) and the ASEAN Energy Award projects (Chantanakome,

2006). The priority was given based on judgment that the project stakeholders will be able to give

useful inputs for the research as they have been directly involved in the prestigious sustainability

related award winning projects. The different groups were targeted because they occupy the

difference roles and involved in the different stage throughout the project life cycle, therefore

their views are sought for this study. In selecting the seven groups of respondents, the developers

were selected as representing the owners, financer and users, meanwhile, architects and engineers

were selected as representing the design team. Preliminary discussion will normally take place

between the planning consultants and the planning department at the respective local authorities

during the layout plan, building plan or planning permission submission process. A registered

town planner is a Principal Submitting Party (PSP) that should be engaged by the developer to

prepare the layout plan and will act as PSP for all planning approvals at the planning permission

stage (Abdullah et al, 2011). The inputs from planners are very important towards successful of a

sustainable projects and its planning process. Thus, town planners were also selected as the

respondents for this quantitative research. Besides, local authorities were chosen on the ground of

being the legal client and approval party. Contractors were incorporated as representing the

construction contractors, operation and maintenance personnel, material and equipment suppliers

and builders. Last but not least, representatives from the local universities were involved to get

inputs from the knowledge and academic institutions side.

A total of 357 companies gave positive replies and agreed to involve in the questionnaire survey.

One respondent was representing of an organisation. The respondents are including 160

contractors, 75 professional architects, 11 professional engineers, 10 professional town planners,

88 developers, 2 representatives of public local universities and 11 officers who are working in

various local authorities. The rest stakeholders were not response or gave negative response due

to some problem encountered such as the reason of lack of sustainability knowledge, not familiar

or don’t have experiences on the project.

The questionnaire survey was conducted from December 2011 until May 2012, and consisted of

close-ended questions with sufficient space provided for the respondents to give additional

information. The respondents were required to rank each strategy on a five-point Likert scale of 1

(not at all important) to 5 (very important) as the case might be. The time spent for questionnaires

distribution was approximately seven months including the time spent for pilot study of two

months (October to November 2011). By the end of May 2012, 188 samples were successfully

obtained within the range of 42%-100% from each group, making the overall response rates of

53%. The response rates are considered satisfactorily accepted as argued by Rozhan, (2001);

Nordin and Arawati, (1993); Kanapathy and Jabnoun, (1998) and Sarachek and Aziz, (1983) that

the average response rates of academic research in Malaysia were normally obtained around 15%


24

to 25% only. Dulaimi et al (2003) also highlighted that the normal response rate in the

construction industry for postal questionnaires is 20% to 30%.

In the effort to analyze the collected data for the most significant strategies, three stages of data

analysis that have been utilized: Cronbach’s alpha Measurement, Factor analysis, and the RII.

Analysis of the data was undertaken using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences)

version 17.0. The findings of Cronbach’s alpha Measurement and Factor analysis are significant

in providing accurate estimate of internal consistency and indicate how well the items (strategies)

in the set are correlated each other. It is also important in reducing the items and selects only the

important ones to be included in the proposed framework. Relative Important Index (RII) was

next employed to indicate the weighting value of each item and assigning the appropriate

weighting levels to each of the final selected item of the strategies. A framework of integrating

sustainability through project planning process was then developed before concluding the paper.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Identifying the strategies

The review of available knowledge offered a starting list of 21 items of strategy to integrate

sustainability into building projects through planning process to be investigated for their possible

inclusion in the proposed framework as indicated in the third column of Table 2. The strategies

were divided into four groups namely, Sustainable Project Orientation (PO), Integrated Project

Team (IPT), Integrated Design Process (ID), and Regulations and Code Compliances (RC). PO

consists of two strategies (PO1 and PO2), IPT consists of seven strategies (IPT1, IPT2, IPT3,

IPT4, IPT5, IPT6, and IPT7), ID consists of nine strategies (ID1, ID2, ID3, ID4, ID5, ID6, ID7,

ID8 and ID9) and RC consists of three strategies (RC1, RC2 and RC7) as illustrated in the first

and second column of Table 2. The strategies then have gone through refining processes by

involving Malaysian project stakeholders to consider the local context. It is also to ensure the

market acceptance and support from the industry. Quantitative survey was employed to elicit this

knowledge.

Analysis of the respondents’ background revealed that 71% of the respondents were male (refer

Table 1). It explains that construction industry in Malaysia is predominantly male. A hundred

percent (100%) of the respondents are degree holders, which is 11% of them are also master’s

degree and PhD holders. A total of 42% of the respondents have been directly involved in

sustainable building project. This percentage is considered unquestionable because this project is

still new and unusual among the construction stakeholders in Malaysia (Zainul Abidin, 2010).

Majority (81.9%) of the respondents have been active in construction industry between 11 to 15

years and 38% of them also having experiences in sustainable building projects. The rest of

18.1% respondents have been active in the industry between the ranges of 16 to 26 years and

above and 56% of them have also been directly involved in sustainable building projects.

Therefore, by considering their level of education, working experiences and career development,

the respondents who gave their responses in the survey are considered to be competent to give

their ideas on the subject matter.


25

Table 1: The Background of the Respondents

Characteristic Frequency Valid

Percent (%)

Gender Male 133 70.7

Female 55 29.3

Total 188 100.0

Highest

Educational

Level

Degree 168 89.4

Masters 17 9.0

PhD 3 1.6

Total 188 100.0

Membership

and Training

Professional Institution

Membership 97 51.6

CSCS Card

(Construction Skill

Certification Scheme)

1 0.5

Specific Training on

Sustainable Building

Project

15 8.0

Ongoing CPD 9 4.8

Professional Institute

Membership and CSCS

Card

3 1.6

Professional Institute

Membership and

Ongoing CPD

5 2.7

Others 58 30.9

Total 188 100.0

Experiences

in

Construction

Industry

11-15 years 154 81.9

16-20 years 20 10.6

21-25 years 13 6.9

26+ years 1 0.6

Total 188 100.0

Involvement

in Sustainable

Building

Project

0 project 110 58.5

1-5 projects 71 37.8

6-10 projects 5 2.7

11-15 projects 2 1.1

Total 188 100.0

4.2 Internal consistency reliability

The first stage of the quantitative analysis was related to the reliability test where the reliability of the

questionnaire was tested according to the Cronbach’s alpha measurement. Through the analysis that has

been done, the alpha reliability of the scale in this study was 0.950 for the items (strategies). Since the

result was achieved above 0.7, it showed that all items have indicated internal consistency and achieved

high reliability. Gliem and Gliem (2003) highlighted that the closer Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is to 1.0

the greater the internal consistency of the items in the scale which, the rule of thumb is >0.9 is excellent,

>0.8 is good, >0.7 is acceptable, >0.6 is questionable, >0.5 is poor and <0.5 is considered unacceptable

(George and Mallery, 2003). Due to high coefficient values of Cronbach’s alpha, it can be concluded that

the respective respondents were admitted the importance of the strategies to be further investigated for the

proposed framework. Nevertheless, even if a high value for Cronbach’s alpha indicates good internal


26

consistency of items in the scale, dimensionality of the scale is still need to be determined by factor

analysis method (Gliem and Gliem, 2003).

4.3 Factor analysis

In the second stage of data analysis process, the data was analyzed using factor analysis in order to

enhance the results of Cronbach’s alpha. Factor analysis was employed to reduce a large number of

variables to a smaller set of underlying factors that summarize the essential information contained in the

variables. This study adopted Principle Component Analysis (PCA) to set up which items could capture

the aspects of same dimension of the sustainability integration strategies and examine the underlying

structure or structure of interrelationships among the 21 strategies items.

The sample was first examined for its suitability to the factor analysis application by employing the

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Sampling Adequacy Test and Barlett’s Test of Sphericity. The value of

overall measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) of 0.5 point and above and significant coefficient of

Bartlett’s test of sphericity of less than the significance level of 0.01 explains that the data suited for factor

analysis method (Jantan and Ramayah, 2006 and Hair, et al, 2005). Table 2 shows that the data recorded

for each groups of items were suitable for factor analysis method, where the scores were more than the

minimum requirement of 0.5 point for overall KMO measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) and significant

coefficient of Barlett’s test of sphericity is less than the significance level of 0.01.


27

Table 2: Summary Results of KMO measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) and Significant Coefficient of Barlett’s

test of sphericity

Strategies MSA

Barlett’s test of

sphericity (Sig) Groups Items

PO

PO1 Specific sustainability goals and project priorities

.820 .000 PO2

Sustainable concern during establishment of project

scope, project charter, drawing, contract & detailed

project plan

IPT

IPT1 The project team members are involved and maintained

throughout the planning process

.810 .000

IPT2 Local community representative is involved in support

of the project

IPT3 An integrated design/ sustainability coordinator is

appointed as one of the project’s team members

IPT4 The team should have the core knowledge of

sustainable building project

IPT5 Team members are educated on sustainability issues

and process including vendors

IPT6 Team members’ selection with sustainable

development quality and capability

IPT7 Team members are fully informed on sustainability

goals and priorities of the project.

ID

ID1 Involve diverse set of stakeholders on the team

.846 .000

ID2 Committed and collaborative team throughout the

process

ID3 Bringing the team together as early as possible during

planning process

ID4

Integrated design requirements and the process are

included into the project documentations, strategic &

comprehensive plan.

ID5 Do whole building design and systems analysis

ID6 Commissioning process is added during this process

and described in a specific section

ID7 Planning should reflect all the project stakeholders

ID8 Design should reflect the end user community

ID9 Effective communication and incorporation of charette

process

RC

RC1 Government policies to encourage sustainable

development

.659 .000 RC2 Compliance with code and regulatory tool of

sustainability

RC3 Incentive to encourage sustainable development

Factor analysis was then carried out to examine the communalities. The communality is defined as amount

of shared or common variance among the variables. Communalities indicate the proportion of the variance

in the original variables that is accounted for by the factor solution. Initial communalities are estimates of

the variance in each variable accounted for by all components or factors. Higher variance means higher

importance of the variables. Extraction communalities are estimates of the variance in each variables

accounted for by the factors or components in the factor solution. The general guidelines mentioned that

the factor solution explain at least half of each original variable’s variance, thus the communality value

(score after extraction) should be more than 0.5 point for the data to be justifiable for application of the

factor analysis method. Communalities less than 0.5 were considered too low, since this would meant the


28

variable share less than half of its variability with other variables (Larose, 2006). Thus, variables with

loadings less than 0.5 were removed from the analysis due to low communality. The analysis revealed that

the values extracted communalities for all factors (strategies) were higher than 0.05. Accordingly, this set

of data input is justifiable for the application of factor analysis method.

To examine which variable significantly contribute to dependent variables, the PCA was applied with

varimax rotation to validate which constructs to be distinct as perceived by the respondents. The

eigenvalue criterion stated that each component explained at least one variable’s worth of variability, and

therefore only components with eigenvalue greater than 1 should be retained (Larose, 2006). Rotation is a

method used to simplify interpretation of the extracted components. Rotation assigns uniquely each

variable to only one factor that is highly correlated with them (Hair et al, 2005). An item that has

significant value of more than 0.3 is loaded on more than one factor which consequently, the problem of

cross-loading existed. Applying Varimax rotation results a clearer pattern of assignment with minimal

problem of cross-loadings. Each item should load 0.5 or greater on one factor and 0.35 or lower on the

other factors (Igbaria, 1995). Hair et al (2005) indicated that a component loading of ±0.3 meant the item

was of minimal significance, ±0.4 indicated it was more important and more than ±0.5 indicated that the

component was significant.

Table 3 depicts the results of total variance explained for all variables (strategies) under the group of PO.

The result shows that there was only one component with eigenvalue greater than 1 (1.819) and the total

variance explained was 90.966% of the total variance in the variables was included on the components.

Only one component was extracted which consists the items of PO1 and PO2.

Table 3: Total Variance Explained of PO

Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 1.819 90.966 90.966 1.819 90.966 90.966

2 .181 9.034 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Table 4 shows that the total variance explained for all variables under the group of IPT. The results

showed that there were two components with eigenvalue greater than 1. The components solution

explained a sum of the variance with component 1 contributing of 55.693% and component 2 contributing

of 16.481%. Thus, two components have been extracted for these variables which would explain 72.174%

of the total variance. The result of applying rotation method of Varimax with Kaiser Normalization

showed that the strategy of IPT group can be represented by two components which each variable on each

factor was highly correlated each other. Factor 1 consists of the variables of IPT4, IPT5, IPT6 and IPT7.

Meanwhile, factor 2 consists of the variables of IPT1, IPT2 and IPT3. As highlighted by Igbaria (1995),

each item should load 0.5 or greater on one factor and 0.35 or lower on the other factors. On the basis of

this test, one item has been removed from the group which is the variable of IPT1 (the item loads 0.480 on

one factor and 0.740 on the other factor).


29

Table 4: Total Variance Explained of IPT

Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 3.899 55.693 55.693 3.899 55.693 55.693 2.619 37.416 37.416

2 1.154 16.481 72.174 1.154 16.481 72.174 2.433 34.758 72.174

3 .623 8.900 81.074

4 .469 6.695 87.769

5 .385 5.493 93.262

6 .265 3.793 97.054

7 .206 2.946 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 5 shows the total variance explained for all variables under the group of ID. The results explained

that there were two components with eigenvalue greater than 1 and consequently, there were two

components extracted for these variables which would explain 65.160% of the total variance. The results

after applying rotation method of Varimax with Kaiser Normalization showed that the strategy of ID can

be represented by two components which each variable on each factor was highly correlated each other.

Factor 1 consists of the variables of ID1, ID2, ID3, ID4, ID7 and ID8. Meanwhile, factor 2 consists of the

variables of ID5, ID6 and ID9.

Table 5: Total Variance Explained of ID

Comp

onent

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 4.792 53.249 53.249 4.792 53.249 53.249 3.688 40.974 40.974

2 1.072 11.911 65.160 1.072 11.911 65.160 2.177 24.187 65.160

3 .792 8.796 73.956

4 .635 7.059 81.015

5 .494 5.485 86.500

6 .408 4.529 91.029

7 .374 4.160 95.189

8 .225 2.498 97.687

9 .208 2.313 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 6 depicts the results of total variance explained for all variables of RC group of strategy. The result

showed that there was only one component with eigenvalue greater than 1 (2.320) and the total variance

explained was 77.337% of the total variance in the variables. One component was extracted for this group

which consists of the items RC1, RC2 and RC3.


30

Table 6: Total Variance Explained of RC

Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 2.320 77.337 77.337 2.320 77.337 77.337

2 .480 15.989 93.326

3 .200 6.674 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Overall, based on the PCA analysis output, one item was eliminated from the set of the strategies, which is

the strategy of IPT1. The rest of the 20 strategies are then considered to be included in the proposed

framework. This exclusion, however does not necessarily indicate that the strategy is not important to be

considered for the framework but a more rational argument would be the strategy has not much very well

exposed among the Malaysian project stakeholders as the traditional planning process are carried out

linearly throughout the process. Without this exposure, the strategy would only be considered to be non

critical among the project stakeholders. Another reason is the strategy was perceived as not the current

priority issues in Malaysia to be resolved as compared to the others. Several respondents also claimed that

maintaining the same project team members throughout the whole planning process is sometimes difficult

due to unforeseen circumstances.

4.4 Establishing the weights for the strategies

For the purpose of indicating the weighting value of each strategy that has been selected through PCA

method, the data was analyzed using RII approach. By using mean values (MS), the resulted RII value

was transformed into three important levels: high (0.8≤RII≤1), medium (0.5≤RII≤0.8) and low

(0≤RII≤0.5) (Tam et al, 2007). The RII ranges are from zero to one and the factors will be ranked based

on the biggest value. It was measured based on the following formula (Tam et al, 2000).

RII = Sum of weights (W1 + W2 + W3 + ……+ Wn )

A x N

‘W’ is the weights given to each factor by the respondents and will ranges from 1 to 5 where ‘1’ is not at

all important and ‘5’ is very important, ‘A’ is representing of the highest weight (i.e. 5 in this case), and

‘N’ is representing of the total number of respondents (i.e. 188 in this case). Put differently, RII is

calculated by dividing the mean of the weightings assigned by the respondents with the highest weighting.

RII = Mean

5

The results tabulated in Table 7 shows the RII for each of the chosen strategies. The RII values of PO

group of strategies are within the ranges of 0.86 to 0.87, IPT group are within the ranges of 0.81 to 0.91,

ID group are within the ranges of 0.82 to 0.89 and RC group are within the range of 0.86 to 0.89. The

strategies of IPT4 (RII of 0.91), RC1 (RII of 0.89) and ID3 (RII of 0.89) scored the highest rank of RII

among other strategies. The resulted RII value of the 20 strategies are above 0.8 which representing of

‘highly important’ to be included in the proposed framework.


31

Table 7: RII of the Strategies to Integrate Sustainability through Project Planning Process

Strategies Respondents’ feedback Important

Level Groups Items Mean Score Weights

(RII)

PO PO2 4.3 0.87 High

PO1 4.3 0.86 High

IPT

IPT4 4.5 0.91 High

IPT5 4.4 0.88 High

IPT7 4.4 0.88 High

IPT6 4.4 0.88 High

IPT3 4.2 0.84 High

IPT2 4.1 0.81 High

ID

ID3 4.4 0.89 High

ID8 4.4 0.87 High

ID4 4.4 0.87 High

ID5 4.3 0.86 High

ID2 4.3 0.86 High

ID1 4.2 0.84 High

ID9 4.1 0.83 High

ID7 4.1 0.83 High

ID6 4.1 0.82 High

RC

RC1 4.5 0.89 High

RC3 4.4 0.88 High

RC2 4.3 0.86 High

4.5 Developing a Framework for Sustainability Integration during Project Planning Process

The findings of this research have recommended a framework to integrate sustainability into building

project through planning process relevant to Malaysian context as described in Table 8. The proposed

framework includes the strategies that considered the Malaysian context and the local building project

stakeholders views based on their knowledge and experiences on sustainable building project.


32

Table 8: Strategies to Integrate Sustainability in Building through Project Planning Process

STRATEGIES RANK

SUSTAINABLE PROJECT ORIENTATION

1. Sustainable concern during establishment of project scope,

project charter, drawing, contract and detailed project plan 1

2. Specific sustainability goals and project priorities 2

INTEGRATED PROJECT TEAM

3. The team should have the core knowledge of sustainable

building 1

4. Team members are educated on sustainability issues

including vendors. 2

5. Team members are fully informed on sustainability goals

and priorities of the project. 3

6. Team members’ selection with sustainable development

quality and capability 4

7. An integrated design/ sustainability coordinator is

appointed as one of the project’s team members 5

8. Local community representative is involved in support of

the project 6

INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS

9. Bringing the team together as early as possible during

planning process 1

10. Design should reflect the end user community 2

11. Integrated design requirements and the process are

included into the project documentations, strategic and

comprehensive plan.

3

12. Do whole building design and systems analysis 4

13. Committed and collaborative team throughout the process 5

14. Involve diverse set of stakeholders on the team 6

15. Effective communication and incorporation of charette

process 7

16. Planning should reflect all the project stakeholders 8

17. Commissioning process is added during this process &

described in a specific section. 9

REGULATIONS AND CODE COMPLIANCES

18. Government policies to encourage sustainable

development 1

19. Incentive to encourage sustainable development 2

20. Compliance with code and regulatory tool of sustainability 3

5 Conclusion

The advantages of sustainable building have been revealed through much researches and case studies

conducted worldwide. However, as this subject is a new territory in Malaysia, some issues such as the lack

of knowledge on sustainability principles and the integration strategies made the project less appreciated.

To surmount the issues, there is a need to search and introduce effective ways to integrate sustainability in

the building project. An efficient planning process can significantly improve the ability of sustainability


33

integration into a project. A successful project planning process in integrating sustainability principles will

then able to minimize the challenges and barriers of a sustainable building for many projects. In turn, this

research sought to develop a framework to integrate sustainability throughout the project through its

planning process to enable this aspect to be considered in an efficient manner. Significant adjustments to

the conventional project planning process were explored. A shift in mindset towards the longer term

benefits of sustainability need to be initiated. The concepts of sustainable development need to become

more prevalent in the project planning process and decision in order to consider costs and times over the

entire life cycle of construction project, as opposed to the considerations at the initial stage only. Although

practices in other countries were considered, the local context was a vital component and it was addressed

by engaging local competent project stakeholders’ inputs. From the survey, most stakeholders in Malaysia

believed that focus should be given especially throughout the project planning process, which the project

should be oriented towards sustainability, employing of an integrated design process by an integrated

project team and supported by sustainability code and regulatory tools. For further studies, it would be

interesting to look deeper into the proposed strategies and investigate how the strategies influence the

performances of building projects. It is hoped that these strategies as described in the proposed framework

will provide an essential guide during planning process towards delivering a successful sustainable

building project in Malaysia in the future.

References

Abdullah, A. A., Harun, Z., Abdul Rahman, H., 2011. Planning process of development project in the

Malaysian context: A crucial brief overview. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology,

vol. 1(2), pp74-81.

APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Corporation), 2012. APEC energy overview 2012. Retrieved Sept. 12,

2013 from: http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1432.

Beheiry, S. M. A., Chong, W. K., Haas, C. T., 2006. Examining the business impact of owner

commitment to sustainability. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132, 384-392.

Bernard, H. R., 2000. Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage Publishing

Ltd, London.

Bogenstätter, U., 2000. Prediction and optimization of life-cycle costs in early design. Building Research

Information, 28, 376-386.

Choi, C., 2009. Removing market barriers to green development: principles and action projects to promote

widespread adoption of green development practices. JOSRE, 1, 107-138.

Chantanakome, W., 2006. Asean energy awards and ACE Nodal Centers Network: Regional energy

policy and planning in ASEAN for sustainable development. AREPP ASD Workshop. Retrieved Nov. 24,

2011 from: www.asean_sustainable_energy.net/documents/libraries/001/ACE

CIDB (Construction Industry Development Board), 2003. IBS Roadmap 2003-2010, CIDB, Malaysia

CIDB (Construction Industry Development Board), 2007. Construction Industry Master Plan Malaysia

2006-2015, CIDB, Malaysia

CIDB (Construction Industry Development Board), 2008. Construction Statistics. CIDB, Malaysia.

CIOB (The Chartered Institute of Building), 2010. Code of Practice for Project Management for

Construction and Development, Wiley-Blackwell, United Kingdom.

Department of Electric and Gas Supply Malaysia, 2001. Statistic of electricity supply industry in

Malaysia. Department of Electric and Gas Supply Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur.

Department of Standards Malaysia, 2007. MS1525: Code of practice on energy efficiency and use of

renewable energy for non-residential buildings (first revision). Department of Standards Malaysia,

Malaysia.

Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2011. Population and housing census, Malaysia 2010 (2010 census).

Retrieved Sept. 13, 2012 from: http://www.statistics.gov.my.

Doyle, J. T., Brown, R. B., De Leon, D. P., Ludwig, L., 2009. Building green-potential impacts to the

project schedule. International Transactions, PS.08.01-PS.08.11.

http://publications.apec.org/publication-detail.php?pub_id=1432

http://www.asean_sustainable_energy.net/documents/libraries/001/ACE

http://www.statistics.gov.my/


34

Dulaimi, M. F., Ling, F. Y. Y., Bajracharya, A., 2003. Organisational motivation and inter-organisational

interaction in construction innovation in Singapore. Construction Management and Economics, 21, 307-

318.

Dumont, P., Gibson, G., & Fish, J., 1997. Scope management using the Project Definition Rating Index

(PDRI) Journal of Management in Engineering, 13, 54-60.

George, D., Mallery, P., 2003. SPSS for windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. 11.0 Update.

Allyn & Bacon. Boston

Gibson, G. E., Gebken, R. J., 2003. Design quality in pre-project planning: applications of the project

definition rating index. Building Research and Information, 31, 346-356.

Glavinich, T. E., 2008. Contractor’s guide to green building construction: management, project delivery,

documentation and risk reduction. Wiley, New York

Gliem, J. A., Gliem, R. R., 2003. Calculating, interpreting and reporting cronbach's alpha reliability

coefficient for Likert-type scales. Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing and

Community Education, Midwest

GSB (Greenbuildingindex Sdn. Bhd.), 2012. What is a green building. Retrieved Nov. 4, 2012 from:

http://www.greenbuildingindex.org/why-green-buildings.html

Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., 2005. Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

Halliday, S., 2008. Sustainable Construction., Mass: Butterworth-Heinemann, Stoneham

Hamilton, M. R., Gibson, G. E., 1996. Benchmarking pre-project planning efforts. Management in

Engineering, 12, 25-33.

Hayles, C., 2004. The role of value management in the construction of sustainable communities. The

Value Manager, 10(1).

Hwang, B.G., Ng, W. J., 2013. Project management knowledge and skills for green construction:

Overcoming challenges. International Journal of Project Management, 31, 272-284.

Iqbaria, M., 1995. The Impact of job performance evaluation on career advancement prospect: an

examination of gender difference in the IS workplace MIS Quarterly, 19, 107-123.

Jantan, M., Ramayah, T., 2006. Goodness of measures: factors and reliability analyses. University of

Science Malaysia, Penang

Kanapathy, K., Jabnoun, N., 1998. Are ISO 9000 and TQM programmes paying off for Malaysian

manufacturing companies? Malaysian Management Review, 33, 40-46.

Lapinski, A. R., Horman, M. J., Riley, D. R., 2006. Lean processes for sustainable project delivery.

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132, 1083-1091.

Larose, D. T., 2006. Data mining methods and models. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.

Mansur, S. A., Che Wan Putra, C. W. F., Mohamed, A. H., 2003. Productivity Assessment and Schedule

Compression Index (PASCI) for Project Planning. 5th Asia Pacific Structural Engineering and

Construction Conference (ASPEC 2003), Johor Bahru, Malaysia

Md Darus, Z., Hashim, N. A., Salleh, E., Haw, L. C., Abdul Rashid, A. K., Abdul Manan, S. N., 2009.

Development of rating system for sustainable building in Malaysia. WSEAS Transactions on Environment

and Development, 5, 260-272.

Muldavin, S. R., 2010. Value beyond cost savings, how to underwrite sustainable properties. Muldavin

Company Inc, United States

NCI (National Charrette Institute), 2007. What is a charrette? Retrieved Oct. 17 2011, from:

http://www.charretteinstitute.org/charrette.html

Perkins, D. F., Feinberg, M. E., Greenberg, M. T., Johnson, L. E., Chilenski, S. M., Mincemoyer, C. C.,

Spoth, R.L., 2011. Team factors that predict to sustainability indicators for community-based prevention

teams. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34, 283-291.

Reed, W. G., Gordon, E. B., 2000. Integrated design and building process: What research and

methodologies are needed? Building Research and Information, 28(5-6), 325-337.

Reyes, J. P., San-Jose, J. T., Cuadrado, J., Sancibrian, R., 2014. Health and safety criteria for determining

the sustainable value of construction projects Safety Science, 62, 221-232.

http://www.charretteinstitute.org/charrette.html


35

Riley, D., Magent, C., Horman, M., 2004. Sustainable metrics: a design process model for high

performance buildings. 16th CIB World Building Congress, Retrieved Oct. 7 2011, from:

http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB9702.pdf

Robichaud, L. B., Anantatmula, V. S., 2011. Greening project management practices for sustainable

construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 27, 48-57.

Rozhan, O., Rohayu, Rashidah, A., 2001. Great expectations: CEO's perception of the performance gap of

the HRM function in the Malaysian manufacturing sector. Personnel Review, 30, 61-80.

Shafii, F., Arman Ali, Z., Othman, M. Z., 2006. Achieving sustainable construction in the developing

countries of Southeast Asia. 6th Asia-Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction Conference

(APSEC 2006), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Sappe, R., 2007. Project management solutions for building owners and developers. Building, 101, 22-22.

Sarachek, B., Aziz, A. H., 1983. A survey of Malaysian personnel practices and problems. Jurnal

Pengurusan, 2, 61-79.

Sayce, S., Walker, A., & McIntosh, A., 2004. Building sustainability in the balance: promoting

stakeholder dialogue. Estate Gazette, London.

Sekaran, U., Bougie, R., 2009. Research methods for business: a skill building approach (5th ed.). John

Wiley and Sons Ltd, United Kingdom.

Syal, M. G., Grobler, F., Willenbrock, J. H., Parfitti, M. K., 1992. Construction project planning process

model for small-medium builders. Construction Engineering and Management, 118, 651-666.

Tam, C. M., Deng, Z. M., Zeng, S. X., and Ho, C. S., 2000. Quest for continous quality improvement for

public housing construction in Hong Kong. Journal of Construction Management and Economics, 18, 437-

446.

Tam, V. W. Y., Tam, C. M., Ng, W. C. Y., 2007. On prefabrication implementation for different project

types and procurement methods in Hong Kong. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 5, 68-80.

Ugwu, O. O., and Chaupt, T., 2005. Key Performance Indicators for Infrastructure Sustainability – A

Comparative Study between Hong Kong and South Africa. Journal of Engineering, Design and

Technology, 3, 30-43.

Wu, P., Low, S. P., 2010. Project management and green buildings: lesson from the rating systems.

Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 136, 64-67.

Yudelson, J., 2009. Green building through integrated design. Mc Graw Hill Companies, United States.

Zainul Abidin, N., 2009. Sustainable construction in Malaysia - developers’ awareness. World Academy

of Science, Engineering and Technology, 53, 807-814.

Zainul Abidin, N., 2010. Investigating the awareness and application of sustainable construction concept

by Malaysian developers. Habitat International, 34, 421-426.

Zwikael, O., 2009. Critical Planning Processes in Construction Projects. Construction Innovation 9, 372-

387

sustainability integration into building projects: malaysian

Documents